<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (12) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270164</link>
    <description>The court quashed the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the assessment was reopened solely based on the Audit Department&#039;s objections without the Assessing Officer independently forming the belief of income escaping assessment, contravening legal requirements. The court emphasized the necessity for the Assessing Officer to autonomously establish such belief before initiating assessment reopening under section 147. Consequently, the court ruled the notice invalid and lacking legal authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:39:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270164</link>
      <description>The court quashed the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the assessment was reopened solely based on the Audit Department&#039;s objections without the Assessing Officer independently forming the belief of income escaping assessment, contravening legal requirements. The court emphasized the necessity for the Assessing Officer to autonomously establish such belief before initiating assessment reopening under section 147. Consequently, the court ruled the notice invalid and lacking legal authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>